I personally warned him, multiple times, nonanonymously. (Of course, I’m also a lawyer, so maybe I don’t count.)

>Everyone knows he WAS NOT WARNED
>on his blog by anyone except
>Eric.

Unfortunately, we can’t go back to the comments on Flea’s blog now, because then I could point out several other comments, besides Erik T’s, where people mentioned things like “I hope you’re not doing this in real time” and so on. From my memory, at least two of those comments were from females, and at least one was left non-anonymously.

Since comments can actually be left at any time after a post, you might consider the possibility that there were warning-type comments that *I* read that were actually left after the point in time where YOU read the comments…meaning that you could be a faithful reader of the blog and still miss some of the comments (because they were actually left after you last read the comment section of a particular post.)

Since we can’t access those comments anymore, we will have to just agree that your recollections are different from my recollections.

By the way, I do regret my sarcastic comment about you not being a reader of Flea’s blog. Obviously that was motivated by anger, and not very well considered before I posted it.

What puzzles me is why you feel that this perceived lack of warnings translates to readers being “gossip whores.”

Did you yourself believe that Flea was doing something dangerous? If so, why didn’t YOU warn him?

Speaking for myself, I didn’t post a warning for several reasons. (1) I read warnings posted by others. (2) I assumed he was not posting about the event in real time, and therefore did not think there was a real threat of unmasking from his posts (perhaps this was a bit naive, in retrospect).

Here’s an argument you could make that I would agree with. Some readers probably DID perceive a danger, and many of those readers apparently did not try to protect Flea by warning him. Those readers probably did Flea a disservice by not sharing their concerns.

However, I don’t think you can assume anything about their motivations for remaining silent, and your conclusion that “the excitement and drama of it all was far more important than friendship” seems quite unfounded. Why would you think people that respected Flea and/or considered him a “friend” intentionally allowed him to get himself into trouble? Do you really view most people so negatively? Do you judge everyone you come in contact with this harshly?

By the way, I respect your right to comment anonymously, but practically speaking, it’s easier to have a dialogue if you use some type of identifier that people can refer to. Maybe you could call yourself “John” or “PB&J” or “the commenter formerly known as Anon who thinks everyone let Flea down” or whatever.

I stand corrected! You’re right! I do recall him being warned on his blog of danger. It was Eric Turkowitz that was doing the warning. Kind of ironic isn’t it, that the only person who saw fit to warn him was a N.Y. personal injury Lawyer!

Everyone knows he WAS NOT WARNED on his blog by anyone except Eric.

In fact, Flea never revealed on the blog whether his case was real-time vs. being reported historically, so many readers probably assumed that he was not talking about something that was happening currently.

I’m very sorry that Flea was “unmasked” without his consent. His anonymous blog was one of my favorites — well written, with both good science and an authentic voice.

I guess the excitement and drama of it all was far more important than friendship? Everyone of you knew where this could lead, and quite frankly, I think you guys are gossip whores.

Tell me something: When does losing a malpractice case ever make a dent in a doctor’s license? What is it that a doctor has to do to get his license yanked? I don’t mean, “Oh, he’s been convicted of drug diversion, a felony, so he automatically loses the license, but tomorrow he can apply to get it back and he will.” I mean, license yanked. Do not pass go, do not collect $150K a year.

I am not speaking to the merits of Flea’s case, because it’s clear that everyone’s strayed off the subject. Let’s get back to it: No one knows what impact the blog has on the case.

Flea settled the case after he was cross-examined. I take it that the attorney for the plaintiff did not stand up and ask one question — about the blog — and sit down again.

Procedurally, where was the case? Was that the end of all the evidence?

Everyone here — including the Globe — is inferring that the blog caused the settlement. We know no such thing.

Before prejudging a case, please remember that a factual nuance can mean a lot. Here is one link to the facts of the McDonald’s Coffee verdict, for instance.

The point is, no one knows what the facts are in Flea’s case. It is a terrible idea that he blogged about his case. It is absolutely arrogant. Ironically, one of the things that patients complain about is the extent to which doctors seem to think they know everything about everything and dismiss patient concerns. Sometimes patient concerns should be dismissed, but you know, sometimes they’re real.

His lawyer, who, by the way, probably incurred significant education debt himself, would probably have preferred that he not post about the case in the blog. Had he not, I’d hazard a guess that the blog might have been a lot less useful.

Incidentally, your private e-mails could possibly be subject to discovery in certain matters as well, depending on the facts of the case.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/03/21/what_went_wrong/

Or bought. Are your judges elected? Ours are, and guess who funds at least some of these campaigns…well-heeled trial lawyers. This is part of the reason venue-shopping exists, the other reason is juries comprised of an undereducated populace that is favorably inclined to plaintiffs and easily influenced by emotional factors in awarding noneconomic damages. BTW, I’m sure OJ agrees with you about the wisdom of your fellow man!

But if you’re saying we must cap damages because it costs us all money, then perhaps we shouldn’t stop there. Let’s cap CEO salaries, let’s cap the cost of fuel, let’s cap the cost of clothes. It would save us all money, right?

I’m not like you – I don’t think my fellow man is so ignorant as to be led around by the nose by “wiley” attorneys. After all, I think the defense gets lawyers too. And most studies say judges agree with juries the majority of the time – but maybe they’ve been tricked as well!